´ëÇѾð¾îÇÐȸ ÀüÀÚÀú³Î

´ëÇѾð¾îÇÐȸ

27±Ç 3È£ (2019³â 9¿ù)

Çѱ¹¾î ÇнÀÀÚÀÇ ¼÷´Þµµ¿¡ µû¸¥ Ç¥Çö ¹®Çü »ç¿ë ¾ç»ó ¿¬±¸

ÀÌÀ¯¹Ì

Pages : 23-51

DOI : https://doi.org/10.24303/lakdoi.2019.27.3.23

PDFº¸±â

¸®½ºÆ®

Abstract

Lee, Yumi. (2019). A study on the use of expressive sentence patterns according to Korean learners proficiency. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 27(3), 23-51. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between Korean learners use of expressive sentence patterns and their proficiency. A total of 75 learners of Korean as a second language (KSL) participated in the study. The participants were divided into three groups: beginner (N=25), intermediate (N=25), and advanced (N=25). The participants were asked to respond to a Discourse Completion Test (DCT), and to take a C-test on proficiency. The DCT included two questions for each discourse: suggestion, order, request, apology, refusal, and wish scenarios. In order to examine learners use of expressive sentence patterns, this study considered both types and tokens. The analysis of Spearmans Rho revealed a low positive relationship between learners use of expressive sentence patterns and their proficiency. Moreover, Fisher's exact test results showed that there were significant differences among the three groups in the use of expressive sentence patterns for order and refusal. The study showed that learners increased their use of polite expressions in the advanced group, and indicated that proficiency is associated with pragmatic knowledge of expressive sentence patterns.

Keywords

# Ç¥Çö ¹®Çü(expressive sentence patterns) # Á¤ÇüÈ­µÈ Ç¥Çö(formulaic expressions) # ¼÷´Þµµ(proficiency)

References

  • °­ÇöÈ­. (2007a). Çѱ¹¾î ±³ÀçÀÇ ¹®ÇüÀ¯Çü ºÐ¼®-¹®Çü µî±ÞÈ­¸¦ À§ÇØ-. Çѱ¹¾î ±³À°, 18(1), 1-21.
  • °­ÇöÈ­. (2007b). Çѱ¹¾î Ç¥Çö¹®Çü ´ãÈ­±â´É°úÀÇ »ó°ü¼º ºÐ¼® ¿¬±¸-Áö½ÃÀû È­ÇàÀ» Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î-. ÀÌÁß¾ð¾îÇÐ, 34, 1-26.
  • *°­ÇöÈ­, ÀÌÇöÁ¤, ³²½ÅÇý, Àå丰, È«ÇöÁ¤, ±è°­Èñ. (2016). Çѱ¹¾î±³À° ¹®¹ý ÀÚ·áÆí. ¼­¿ï: ÇѱÛÆÄÅ©.
  • *±¹¸³±¹¾î¿ø. (2005). ¿Ü±¹ÀÎÀ» À§ÇÑ Çѱ¹¾î ¹®¹ý 2. ¼­¿ï: Ä¿¹Â´ÏÄÉÀÌ¼Ç ºÏ½º.
  • ±èÀ¯¹Ì. (2005). ¹®Çü »çÀüÀ» À§ÇÑ ¹®Çü ºóµµ Á¶»ç. ÀÎÁö°úÇÐ, 16(2), 123-140.
  • ±èÁß¼· ¿Ü. (2011). ±¹Á¦ Åë¿ë Çѱ¹¾î±³À° Ç¥ÁØ ¸ðÇü °³¹ß 2´Ü°è. ±¹¸³±¹¾î¿ø.
  • ±èÁß¼· ¿Ü. (2017). ±¹Á¦ Åë¿ë Çѱ¹¾î Ç¥ÁØ ±³À°°úÁ¤ Àû¿ë ¿¬±¸. ±¹¸³±¹¾î¿ø.
  • ¹ÎÇö½Ä. (2004). Çѱ¹¾î Ç¥Áر³À°°úÁ¤ ±â¼ú ¹æ¾È. Çѱ¹¾î ±³À°, 15(1), 50-51.
  • *¼­°­´ëÇб³ Çѱ¹¾î±³À°¿ø. (2007). ¼­°­ Çѱ¹¾î 5A, 5B. ¼­¿ï: µµ¼­ÃâÆÇ ÇÏ¿ì.
  • *¼­°­´ëÇб³ Çѱ¹¾î±³À°¿ø. (2008). ¼­°­ Çѱ¹¾î 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B. ¼­¿ï: µµ¼­ÃâÆÇ ÇÏ¿ì.
  • *¼­°­´ëÇб³ Çѱ¹¾î±³À°¿ø. (2015). ¼­°­ Çѱ¹¾î 4A, 4B. ¼­¿ï: µµ¼­ÃâÆÇ ÇÏ¿ì.
  • *¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ ¾ð¾î±³À°¿ø. (2012). ¼­¿ï´ë Çѱ¹¾î 5A, 5B. ¼­¿ï: ÅõÆÇÁî.
  • *¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ ¾ð¾î±³À°¿ø. (2013). ¼­¿ï´ë Çѱ¹¾î 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B. ¼­¿ï: ÅõÆÇÁî.
  • *¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ ¾ð¾î±³À°¿ø. (2015). ¼­¿ï´ë Çѱ¹¾î 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 6A, 6B. ¼­¿ï: ÅõÆÇÁî.
  • ¼®ÁÖ¿¬. (2005). Çѱ¹¾î±³À°¿¡¼­ÀÇ ¹®Çü±³À°ÀÇ ¹æÇâ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÀÏ°íÂû. Çѱ¹¾î±³À°, 16(1), 89-120.
  • ½Å°æ¼±. (2012). Çѱ¹¾î ÇнÀÀÚÀÇ ÀÛ¹®¿¡ ³ªÅ¸³­ Á¤ÇüÈ­µÈ ¾ð¾î »ç¿ëÀÌ ÀÛ¹® Æò°¡ °á°ú¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ. ¾îÇבּ¸, 48(1), 77-96.
  • *¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ Çѱ¹¾îÇдç. (2013). ¿¬¼¼ Çѱ¹¾î 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2, 4-1, 4-2, 5-1, 5-1, 6-1, 6-2. ¼­¿ï: ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ´ëÇÐÃâÆǹ®È­¿ø.
  • ¿ø¹ÌÁø. (2013). Çй®¸ñÀû Çѱ¹¾î ÇнÀÀÚ¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î Á¤ÇüÈ­µÈ Ç¥Çö »ç¿ëÀÇ ¾²±â ±³À° È¿°ú ¿¬±¸. ¾ð¾î»ç½Ç°ú °üÁ¡, 35, 157-181.
  • ¿ø¿îÇÏ, ¹Ú´öÀ¯. (2017). ÇÑ¡¤Áß Çѱ¹¾î ±³Àç¿¡ Á¦½ÃµÈ Ç¥Çö¹®Çü °íÂû. ±³À°¹®È­¿¬±¸, 23(5), 439-467.
  • À¯¼Ò¿µ. (2013). Çѱ¹¾î±³À°À» À§ÇÑ ¹®¹ýÇ¥Çö ¿¬±¸–¹®¹ýÇ¥Çö ¼±Á¤°ú µî±ÞÈ­¸¦ Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î-. ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ ¹Ú»çÇÐÀ§³í¹®.
  • À±Àº¹Ì. (2004). Çѱ¹Àΰú Çѱ¹¾î ÇнÀÀÚÀÇ °ÅÀýÈ­Çà¿¡ ³ªÅ¸³­ °ø¼ÕÀü·« ºñ±³¿¬±¸-ü¸éº¸È£¸¦ À§ÇÑ ¾ð¾îÀû ÀåÄ¡¸¦ Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î-. ¿Ü±¹¾î·Î¼­ÀÇ Çѱ¹¾î±³À°, 29, 117-145.
  • À̹ÌÇý. (2002). Çѱ¹¾î ¹®¹ý±³À°¿¡¼­ 'Ç¥Çö Ç׸ñ' ¼³Á¤¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿¬±¸. Çѱ¹¾î ±³À°, 13(2), 205-225.
  • À̹ÌÇý. (2005). Çѱ¹¾î ¹®¹ý Ç׸ñ ±³À° ¿¬±¸. ¼­¿ï: µµ¼­ÃâÆÇ ¹ÚÀÌÁ¤.
  • À̺¹ÀÚ. (2014). ÃÊ±Þ ÀϺ»ÀÎ Çѱ¹¾î ÇнÀÀÚÀÇ °ÅÀý È­Çà ¿¬±¸: ½Ã°£Â÷¿¡ µû¸¥ Àü·« »ç¿ë ¾ç»óÀ» Áß½ÉÀ¸·Î. Çѱ¹¾î ±³À°, 25(1), 83-113.
  • À̼º¹ü. (2015). ¼ÒÅëÀÇ È­¿ë·Ð. ¼­¿ï: Çѱ¹¹®È­»ç.
  • ÀÌÀºÇÏ. (2015). ÀÛ¾÷±â¾ï ¿ë·®°ú L2 ¼÷´Þµµ°¡ Çѱ¹¾î ÇнÀÀÚÀÇ ÇüÅÂÅë»ç ¿À·ù 󸮿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ: ÀÚ°¡ ¼ÓµµÁ¶Àý µè±â ¿¬±¸. Çѱ¹¾î ±³À°, 26(1), 299-351.
  • ÀÌÇØ¿µ. (2003). Çѱ¹¾î ±³À°¿¡¼­ÀÇ ¹®¹ý ±³À°. ±¹¾î±³À°, 112, 73-94.
  • ÀÌÇ༱, ±è¹®±â. (2017). ÇнÀÀÚ Áß½ÉÀÇ Çѱ¹¾î ¹®Çü ±³À°À» À§ÇÑ Á¦¾ð. ÄÚ±âÅä, 82, 267-301.
  • *ÀÌÈ­¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ ¾ð¾î±³À°¿ø. (2010). ÀÌÈ­ Çѱ¹¾î 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2. ¼­¿ï: Epress.
  • *ÀÌÈ­¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ ¾ð¾î±³À°¿ø. (2011). ÀÌÈ­ Çѱ¹¾î 3-1, 3-2, 4. ¼­¿ï: Epress.
  • *ÀÌÈ­¿©ÀÚ´ëÇб³ ¾ð¾î±³À°¿ø. (2012). ÀÌÈ­ Çѱ¹¾î 5, 6. ¼­¿ï: Epress.
  • Á¶¹ÎÁ¤, °­ÇöÈ­, ¹Úµ¿È£. (2009). »ó¿ëÇ¥ÇöÀÇ ´ãÈ­ ±â´É ºÐ¼®. ¿Ü±¹¾î·Î¼­ÀÇ Çѱ¹¾î±³À°, 34, 465-492.
  • Á¾ÀåÁö. (2015). Çѱ¹¾î ¹®¹ý±³À°À» À§ÇÑ Ç¥Çö¹®Çü ¿¬±¸. ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³ ¹Ú»çÇÐÀ§³í¹®.
  • ÃÖÀ±°ï. (2007). ¿Ü±¹¾î·Î¼­ÀÇ Çѱ¹¾î ±¸¹® Ç¥Çö ¿¬±¸. ¼­¿ï: Çѱ¹¹®È­»ç.
  • ÃÖÁØ, ¼ÛÇöÁÖ, ³²±æÀÓ. (2010). Çѱ¹¾îÀÇ Á¤ÇüÈ­µÈ Ç¥Çö ¿¬±¸. ´ãÈ­¿Í ÀÎÁö, 17(2), 163-190.
  • Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2015). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 324-350.
  • Bardovi-Harlig, K., Rose, M., & Nickels, E. L. (2008). The use of conventional expressions of thanking, apologizing, and refusing. In M. Bowles, R. Foote, S. Perpiñán, & R. Bhatt (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2007 second language research forum (pp. 113-130). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  • Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 65-86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In C. Scarcella, E. Anderson, & D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House.
  • Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371-405.
  • Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
  • Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.
  • Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245-261.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universal in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Canale, M. (l983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
  • Canale, M., & Swain, M. (l980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
  • Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. A. Soler & P. S. Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41-57). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  • Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). A pedagogical framework for communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Eslami, Z. R. (2010). Refusals: How to develop appropriate refusal strategies. In A. Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 217-236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Grundy, P. (2008). Doing pragmatics (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Education.
  • Henriksen, B. (2013). Research on L2 learners¡¯ collocational competence and development: A progress report. In C. Bardel, C. Lindqvist, & B. Laufer (Eds.), L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use: New perspectives on assessment and corpus analysis (pp. 29-56), Amsterdam: Eurosla.
  • Houck, N., & Gass, S. M. (1996). Non-native refusals: A methodological perspective. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 45-64). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4-21.
  • Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
  • Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua, 23(4), 339-364.
  • Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learner¡¯ English. Language Learning, 61(2), 647-672.
  • Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
  • Lee-Ellis, S. (2009). The development and validation of a Korean C-test using rasch analysis. Language Testing, 26(2), 245-274.
  • Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
  • Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
  • Lin, Ming-Fang. (2014). An interlanguage pragmatic study on Chinese EFL learners¡¯ refusal: Perception and performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(3), 642-653.
  • Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-226). London: Longman.
  • Racine, J. P. (2018). Lexical approach. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching Volume ¥± (pp. 1-7). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Rafieyan, V. (2018). Knowledge of formulaic sequences as a predictor of language proficiency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(2), 64-69.
  • Revier, R. L. (2009). Evaluating a new test of whole English collocations. In A. Barfield & H. Gyllstad (Eds.), Researching collocations in another language: Multiple interpretations (pp. 125-138). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Rovai, A. P., Baker, J. D., & Ponton, M. K. (2013). Social science research design and statistics: A practitioner's guide to research methods and IBM SPSS. Chesapeake, VA: Watertree Press LLC.
  • Schmitt, N. (2000). Key concepts in ELT: Lexical chunks. English Language Teaching Journal, 54(4), 400-401.
  • Schmitt, N., Dörnyei, Z., Adolphs, S., & Durow, V. (2004). Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 55-86). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1-23.
  • Serrano, R., Stengers, H., & Housen, A. (2015). Acquisition of formulaic sequences in intensive and regular EFL programmes. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 89-106.
  • Stengers, H., Boers, F., Housen, A., & Eyckmans, J. (2011). Formulaic sequences and L2 oral proficiency: Does the type of target language influence the association?. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching(IRAL), 49(4), 321-343.
  • Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching. London: Collins ELT.
  • Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language in acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 20(1), 1-15.
  • Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.